The Humanism of John Paul II

On January 17, 2001, CNS News reported the following: "Pope John Paul II issues Call for Ecological Conversion . . . The world's people need to undergo an 'ecological conversion' to protect the environment and make the earth a place where all life is valued and can grow in harmony, Pope John Paul II said" http://www.creationethics.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=webpage&page_id=81.

Yes, that's how far we've come. Pope John Paul II, idly standing by as the Church in the USA has been infiltrated by homosexuals and perverts, calls us to convert ecologically. Pardon my human way of speaking here, but what the heck is the Pope doing beating the environmental drums while the Church is going to hell??!! Don't you think that's a bit of "misplaced priorities" here? Did Our Lady of Fatima appear in order to convert people ecologically so that natural disasters would be prevented?? Or did she not rather appear to ask for the conversion of sinners, that we turn from sin, so that God's punishment would not be meted out on the world? Now, Our Lady appeared in 1917 for the first time. May I ask: has the world gotten any better since then in terms of its sinfulness?

A response to that need hardly be given. But the Church, starting from the top on down, has become totally twisted. We have a Supreme Pontiff now who, after all his scandals, sacrileges, blasphemies, and heresies now calls the faithful to ecological conversion. Yes, you got it: we have a "green" Pope! Just when you think you've heard and seen it all from John Paul II, something like this comes along. That's the same Pope who invited a Voodoo witchdoctor to share his thoughts on peace with Catholics. Beautiful. Surely, this must be the "new springtime" we keep hearing about. The Church has so blossomed in this "springtime" that worry about heresy can be replaced by worry about environmental issues. Heck, who cares if people are going to hell because they have followed a false gospel, as long as the trees are green! Of course there is no time to deal with the Novus Ordo bishops covering up for homosexual predator priests, when North Dakota's ladybugs have arthritis!

In Australia, the bishops there have already called for a "green church." Salvation, they say, is not just for mankind, but for all of creation. I'm telling you, if this is not the Great Apostasy, then I sure don't want to be around when it gets here. You can read the story about the Australian green hippies here: http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/02/sep/15/02.html.

Folks, ask yourselves: What's next? An encyclical on animal rights? A motu proprio on the dignity of flowers? An apostolic exhortation on how to avoid emitting carbon-monoxide? Please don't say it can't happen or it would be too ridiculous - since 1958, we've pretty much seen and heard it all. What Pope Pius XII would have insisted could never, ever happen is now considered "conservative." So, please.

Anyway, I needed to give you this shocker because it's just unbelievable what we read about every day, coming from the Vatican, from the bishops, and from the other high offices in the Church. Now, after 14 installments of the humanism of our Pope, you probably wonder by now just what the reason might be for John Paul II's humanistic (and now ecologistic??) teachings. Just why humanism? Why not orthodox Catholicism? Why is John Paul such a humanist?

I suppose only God and perhaps John Paul II can answer this question satisfactorily. However, we can at least make an attempt at understanding the possible motivation that lies behind his strange theology. As always, a messed-up theology originates in messed-up philosophy. When we look at John Paul II's philosophical interests and upbringing, we see that he admired and/or was influenced by Edmund Husserl, Max Scheler, Jacques Maritain, Henri de Lubac, and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) was a mathematician and logician who became extremely well-known by inventing a new method of philosophical investigation known as "phenomenology," a method that would focus on--and be restricted to--investigation of what appears to consciousness. His two-volume work Logical Investigations (1900/01) introduced this new method. The way Husserl defined his phenomenology and the way he wanted it to work, it is not acceptable for a Catholic, because, among other things, it sets aside issues of reality and truth and falsehood. However, some people, even Catholics, have attempted to modify Husserl's phenomenology such that it could be used fruitfully in philosophical and theological investigations. Having studied the issue for quite a while, I must say that I find it to be, at best, nothing other than utterly verbose sophistry with little substance. But that would mean it is seriously harmful to a sincere search for the truth because it clouds the intellect and thereby inhibits its pursuit of truth and wisdom. Consider, for example, terms like "penetrating" and "reflecting"--some of the favorite buzzwords in phenomenology--in connection with phenomenological investigation. I'm sorry, but I just don't think there's much meaning behind them. And as a concrete example, I have yet to see a difference--in practice--between reflecting on a subject and reflecting on it specifically phenomenologically.

For his Ph.D. dissertation in philosophy (1953), John Paul II (as Karol Wojtyla) wrote on the ethics of Max Scheler. While critical of Scheler's conclusion, Fr. Wojtyla was intrigued by Scheler's use of the phenomenological method to reflect on and "penetrate" Christian ethics.

Now, John Paul II certainly loved Scheler's phenomenology, and this left a lasting impression on John Paul's thought. But John Paul did not only have a love of phenomenology, but also of anthropology, the study of man. Now, put the two together and you get phenomenological anthropology - and, I think, this is what we've been seeing in the encyclicals and homilies and other writings of this Pope. Fancy words and highly complicated expressions, spanning lots of pages, while saying very little, and constant references and allusions to man. I don't know about you, but that's how I experience John Paul II's writings.

Just in his latest apostolic letter, Rosarium Virginis Mariae, we once again find his incessant and utterly unprecedented identification of Christ with man in general. Thus, for instance, the subtitle that begins paragraph 25 is "Mystery of Christ, mystery of man." He then says that the Rosary has "anthropological significance," and he claims, as he already did at the very beginning of his pontificate in his first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis, that Christ's life reveals "the truth about man." Once again, John Paul's humanism is easily visible. Last time I checked, Christ didn't come to reveal truth about man but only truth about Himself and about God and about salvation. That Christ's teaching has implications for what is true about man, that's no doubt true. But John Paul treats it as though we would somehow have to discover something about man, as if man were the focal point. No pre-Vatican II Pope to my knowledge ever talked about there being some "big truth about man" that Christ came to reveal or that we have to glimpse. This is utterly novel, and wasn't made possible until Vatican II, the council of man!

The Pope admits as much when he says that it was Vatican II that taught that "it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man is seen in its true light" (Gaudium Et Spes #22). Isn't that sickening? I mean, what the heck is this talking about! "Mystery of man"? Why is everything after Pius XII, and especially since John Paul II, a "mystery"? It is unbelievable. I think this is the phenomenological spirit that the Pope has picked up, which ends up mystifying everything. In the end, there is no more reality but only "profound mystery" to be "penetrated" and some "richness" in it all that ought to be "reflected on." Hello? Are we on the same planet here?

Don't get me wrong. I don't mean to banalize Sacred Doctrine. St. Thomas Aquinas affirmed that our minds could never even grasp - really grasp - the essence of a fly! However, at the same time, St. Thomas taught clearly, with authority, and with God's and the Church's approval, that we can have real knowledge of real things, not just earthly things but also things in the spiritual and metaphysical realms. While having a healthy respect for man's limited knowledge, St. Thomas nevertheless was an epistemological optimist.

Jacques Maritain (1889-1973) was another enormous influence on the thought of Wojtyla/John Paul II. Maritain taught what he called "integral humanism," as opposed to false or secular humanism. On top of that, he also spread "personalism," the notion that personality and personhood are a key to interpreting reality. In other words: it's all about man.

Now, there's no way I could possibly go into all the different philosophies discussed here, but at least I wish to scratch the surface a bit. Another man I mentioned is Fr. Henri de Lubac, who, I believe, was made a cardinal by John Paul II. De Lubac is the "father of the New Theology" - he was a real liberal and modernist. The Society of St. Pius X has graciously made available online a little compendium about all the main figures of the New Theology, i.e. the New Apostasy, and de Lubac is featured prominently in the series "They Think They've Won!" You can view this here: http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1993_December/They_Think_Theyve_Won_PartIII.htm.

The same compendium includes an installment precisely on John Paul II, his novel theology, and his influence by the liberals, including the heretical Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. View it here: http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1994_August/They_Think_Theyve_Won_PartVII.htm.

Basically, since Vatican II, and especially in the writings of John Paul II, instead of a clarification of teaching, we find obfuscation of the old and invention of novelty, together with plenty of convoluted phrases. Interestingly enough, it was Pope St. Pius X who, in his letter "Our Apostolic Mandate," observed that "evil and error are presented in dynamic language which, concealing vague notions and ambiguous expressions with emotional and high-sounding words, is likely to set ablaze the hearts of men in pursuit of ideals which, whilst attractive, are none the less nefarious."

Even before this warning of a very attentive Pope, the First Vatican Council had already made clear that "the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected" (Denzinger #1800). Yet, in my opinion, the present Pope is drawn to do just that: "develop," reinterpret, improve upon, add on to, and transform our received Faith, especially "in light of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council," as he would say.

It is clear why this wicked revolution in the Church could never have taken place without a council. There would have been no basis for any theologian, prelate, or even the Pope, to base their novelties on.

With Vatican II came the turn from proper Catholic philosophy and theology to humanism under the guise of personalism. Fr. Richard Hogan, in his book ironically called Dissent from the Creed, tries to make us understand the novel thinking of Karol Wojtyla this way: "The future Pope used the truth of our Creation in God's image in a new way. Since we are all created to be like God and since we are all unique in reflections of God, our own experiences, properly understood, reveal something of God. Since we are images of God, our experiences should reveal something about God" (p. 319).

Let me at this point again refer to the New Catechism's paragraph 675, which says that there will be a "supreme religious deception [which] is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh."

Before the Great Deception can fully install man in the place of God, there necessarily has to be a "gradual shift," and I think this is done by the "personalism" and humanism of the New Theology. After all, if the Innovators were immediately putting man in God's place, everyone would notice. So, now they're using complicated-sounding heretical musings that many people will simply think are the conclusions of a "profound philosophical mind, a gifted intellect, a great thinker."

And what are the practical applications and conclusions of this "personalism"? Well, we've seen it all: religious liberty, Assisi, indifferentism, blasphemy. Once we turn to man in order to "see God," the line into idolatry has been crossed. Certainly, we can look at man and praise the Creator who has created such a marvelous being. We can gather by looking at man that God is incredibly intelligent and all-powerful. That's fine. But the New Theologians have totally perverted this and made man a way to God. "Man is the way for the Church," said John Paul II in his 1979 encyclical Redemptor Hominis (#14). He suggests that by God's revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ, He has revealed man to himself; that by showing us who He is, He shows us who we are - what utter nonsense, and utter blasphemy. Here we see a continual identification of man with God. Not fully yet, of course, because there's the always-present "in a sense" and "to an extent" and "if properly understood," but you get the point.

"Man in the full truth of his existence, of his personal being and also of his community and social being - in the sphere of his own family, in the sphere of society and very diverse contexts, in the sphere of his own nation or people (perhaps still only that of his clan or tribe), and in the sphere of the whole of mankind - this man is the primary route that the Church must travel in fulfilling her mission: he is the primary and fundamental way for the Church, the way traced out by Christ himself, the way that leads invariably through the mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption," the Pope continues further.

"Man the fundamental way of the Church" - folks, this is utterly novel, unprecedented, never heard-of in the Church until Vatican II and especially John Paul II. It is the fruit of phenomenology, personalism, and humanism. I reject it with every fiber of my being.

In his 1987 encyclical Dominum Et Vivificantem, John Paul II wrote: "The 'first-born of all creation,' becoming incarnate in the individual humanity of Christ, unites himself in some way with the entire reality of man, which is also 'flesh'--and in this reality with all 'flesh', with the whole of creation" (#50). This borders on pantheism! Pantheism is the wicked heresy that God and reality are one, that is, that everything, all of creation, is divine. Surely, the defenders of John Paul II would point to the phrase "in some way" as a way out in order not to reach the pantheist conclusion. But folks, what is this? A cat-and-mouse game? Why is the Pope playing hookey-dookey with us?

I'm glad that John Paul II is so hard to understand - this way, many people will not be misled. On the other hand, other innovators can simply introduce more novelties and claim that John Paul II encourages this or calls for this in one of his writings. You know, the typical "that's what the Pope said" excuse. This is what has largely been done with Vatican II (e.g. "Vatican II says….." when many people have no idea what Vatican II actually said), where we can already see this kind of language, the kind that St. Pius X condemned so long ago.

Basically, as I see it, what John Paul II has given us in his encyclicals is phenomenological personalism - his own philosophical musings mixed with some Catholic doctrine and plenty of novelty. But the Supreme Pontificate is no playground, no testing ground for philosophical theories. We don't want to hear the personal philosophy of Karol Wjotyla applied to Catholicism. We want to hear Catholic truth, unmixed with error. And that is our right.

In an article in The Remnant, Dr. Thomas Woods aptly observed: "What the entire dispute ultimately amounts to is the First Vatican Council's description of the Pope: the guardian of the Church's moral tradition, not its author or innovator. He has no right to impose his personal opinions on the universal Church in the face of thousands of years of testimony to the contrary. To be perfectly frank, the present Pontificate appears to have had a mesmerizing effect on otherwise sensible Catholics, who now believe that Church tradition is whatever the Pope says it is" ("Justice Scalia, the Pope, and the Death Penalty" in The Remnant, 2002).

What's left for me to say? Let me give you a good book recommendation. Fr. Johannes Dormann has written a trilogy about John Paul II called "John Paul II's Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi," first published in 1994. It is available from Angelus Press (1-800-966-7337). See more about it here: http://www.angeluspress.org/sspx_modern_crisis_2.htm#dormann.

You can furthermore find more information on personalism, its philosophical origins, and the whole mess of Vatican II and John Paul II's encyclicals, right here: http://www.traditionalmass.org/Magisterium%20Vat2.htm.

This concludes my series on the humanism of Pope John Paul II. Much evidence has been left untouched, but one can only do so much. You will certainly hear more of John Paul II's horrendous and humanist/personalist statements in future articles on this site.

Here is a more direct response to the issue of whethr the date of August 15 was real--again, in the Archbishop's words:

That's from before Ratzinger offered the Aug. 15th consecration. Look at the date of that Conference - it was less than a week after May 5, whereas the offer came after May 20th, when Ratzinger offered to expedite the consecration.

Of course, having only Msgr. Lefebvre's version may mean that it's distorted as well - he had a poor memory especially as he aged (for instance, his denial that he signed the texts of "Dignitatis Humanae" and "Gaudium et Spes"), and other parts of that same Conference are clearly incorrect in light of the actual documents he refers to (oddly, he gives as quotes what are in fact inaccurate caricatures of the documents):

Indeed, in that letter - I do not have it here - which he brought me from the Holy Father , there is an astonishing sentence. It goes, "It is possible that we consider one day granting you a consecration," as if it was something very vague, a mere possibility, an eventuality. I cannot accept that.

What he refers to is apparently this:

Lastly, I wish to express my gratitude for the intention that you manifested to take into account the particular situation of the Society, proposing to nominate a bishop chosen from its members, and especially in charge of providing for its special needs. Of course, I leave to Your Holiness the decision concerning the person to be chosen and the opportune moment. May I just express the wish that this be in the not too distant future?

None of what you say belies the fact that the secretary's grotesque letter--the one purportedly composed by the Archbishop in which he owns up to his own supposed "errors", makes no mention of any definite date. The "iffy" tone of it underscores the truth of what Lefebvre maintained. It reduces what should have been something definite into something merely proposed. It also leaves the name and date up to the Pontiff--maybe--if the Pontiff so wishes! You prove my point! There is no mention of August 15. If it had been as definite as you suggest, where is mention of it?

You talk about the Archbishop's memory. In fact, it was pretty darn good--though he was speaking informally, without letters at hand. But he got the jist of what was happening--he was being given the runaround. The secretary's final letter proved this--and made it clear all the rest was to string him along. But the matter was too important for this to be left up in the air and not pinned down. The Pontiff was hostile to Tradition and would know a loophole when he saw it--just look at how he betrayed the FSSP ten years after his motu proprio promised the Fraternity its priests might use the '62 missal exclusively.

the one purportedly composed by the Archbishop in which he owns up to his own supposed "errors"

Come on. It's a form letter which was supposed to allow both sides to think they won - Msgr. Lefebvre apologizes for his "mistakes" which he "may have" he committed in good conscience and he forgives the Pope for what he suffered (which was very little in the Pope's mind):

Most Holy Father, it is this good of the Church that I have pursued in all conscience in the sight of God during these past years through much suffering. However, I know that even in good faith, one can make mistakes. Therefore, I humbly ask you to forgive all that in my behavior or that of the Society may have hurt the Vicar or Christ or the Church, and on my part, I forgive from the depth of my heart what I had to suffer.

There is no mention of August 15. If it had been as definite as you suggest, where is mention of it?

The August 15th offer by Ratzinger was after Msgr. Lefebvre rejected the letter. The conversation related by Msgr. Lefebvre in "Fideliter" took place after May 20th, while this letter was referred to in his Conference less than a week after May 5th.

just look at how he betrayed the FSSP ten years after his motu proprio promised the Fraternity its priests might use the '62 missal exclusively

You must be referring to the decision that all clerics of the Latin Rite have a right to say the Novus Ordo. But this has nothing to do with exclusivity of the Fraternity - they are perfectly capable of saying only the 1962 Missal, as they cannot be forced to say the other one. "Ecclesia Dei" did not promise that the Fraternity would be stripped of the right to say the 1970 Missal, either.

This is starting to sound like sophistry on your part. I've already discussed the context of Lefebvre's comments on the August 15 date. How you can dismiss its tone of sarcasm-- regarding the purported date, the clear indication he no more believed in it than he believed in all the other phony projections he had received, all evidently presented in bad faith and designed to delay and prevent--is beyond me.

If you can't show the actual offer by Ratzinger, but can only offer a passing sarcastic comment of disbelief by the Archbishop, then I rest my case. I do so because there is not a shadow of a doubt that Lefebvre believed the proposed date was bogus and meant to string him along. He had the Vatican's number after twenty years of persecution. He knew they were out to kill the old Mass--that was the bottom line, regardless of any latter day negotiations.

As for the so-called "form" letter, it was one long grovel designed to publicly humiliate the Archbishop and dishearten his followers. It offered not a scintilla of anything definite--which was what confirmed the Archbishop in his suspicions. It offered the kind of loopholes Rome is good at--placing the survival of Catholic Tradition itself in a conditional mode, utterly dependent on the goodwill of those who wished to destroy it.

Finally, regarding the FSSP, my point was that the motu proprio was not understood by traditionalists in the same way as it was interpreted later by Rome to undermine the Fraternity's mission. It is like the "form" letter Archbishop Lefebvre was asked to sign--capable of being interpreted later on any way Rome wanted. The motu proprio promised that the two missals could not be mixed, that the FSSP would have "exclusive" use of the '62 missal. That exclusivity was taken to mean one thing by the traditionalists, another by Rome. And, in fact, the missals are already being mixed, now that the Novus Ordo bishops have gotten into the act.

the clear indication he no more believed in it than he believed in all the other phony projections he had received

We know that Msgr. Lefebvre did not believe it - but there is no good reason to suppose Cardinal Ratzinger was lying about the date. You talk about "other phony projections": perhaps you can list some of the dates for the episcopal ordination that Cardinal Ratzigner agreed to and then reneged upon later? But of course such accusations have no proof behind them, just suspicions and claims that the Pope was "out to kill the old Mass", something quite untrue.

If you can't show the actual offer by Ratzinger

That was an offer! Ratzinger said that the consecration would be August 15th, and asked for candidates. Msgr Lefebvre was the one who refused to work towards the ordination, insisting that all three of his rejected candidates be made bishops instead of submitting new candidates as the Cardinal requested.

The motu proprio promised that the two missals could not be mixed

You are thinking of the conditions attached to the 1984 indult.

that the FSSP would have "exclusive" use of the '62 missal

You quote "exclusive". Perhaps you can point to where "Ecclesia Dei" says "exclusive"? Actually what was granted to the FSSP was the right to continue the use of the 1962 MR, but nothing in the Missal takes away the right of the FSSP clerics to say the Mass according to the reformed rite if they so wished - and this is all Protocol 1441 said. Nothing obliges FSSP clerics to say the reformed rite - and this is quite obvious from the fact that the dire predictions made during the controversy over the Protocol have not come to pass.

Not touchy at all. Just a stickler for truth. You apparently believe anybody who criticizes the Bishop of Rome is refusing submission, which is clearly nonsense. Popes must observe the faith like the rest of us. If they don't, they need to be called on it. JPII cannot invent doctrines never before practiced or believed without expecting criticism. He can't pray to false animist gods just to be nice, for instance.

There is a real need for more criticism, not less. Far too many Catholics are like yourself--all too ready to ascribe to the pope divine powers he does not possess, as if his every word and gesture were divinely inspired. But the faith is something handed-down to us by Sacred Tradition, not something invented by a pontiff. In other words, it is our Catholic Tradition which must be guarded at all costs, not every novel papal doctrine that comes down the pike.

So how do we tell the difference? Easy. If the novelty is something which contradicts past ways of acting and believing by the Church, it should be looked at with a jaundiced eye, even if the Pope is teaching it. Here is how the First Vatican Council put it: "For the Holy Spirit was not given to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith." In other words, only papal utterances which guard Tradition have divine protection, novelties do not.

"For the Holy Spirit was not given to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith." In other words, only papal utterances which guard Tradition have divine protection, novelties do not.

A completely erroneous interpretation of this passage from Vatican I. Is that your personal exegesis or was this fed to you from the pulpit?

The passage says the following.

1) The Holy Spirit has been given to the successor of Peter.

2) The Holy Spirit does not reveal new doctrine.

3)The Holy Spirit assists the successor of Peter.

3)This assistance allows the successor of Peter to guard "the revelation that has been transmitted through the apostles", rather than define new doctrine.

What you would like to twist this into saying is that you get to decide whether Papal utterances are in accord with tradition. That's Protestantism. And you are a Protestant.

You are the one claiming Ratzinger proposed a definite date. But you offer as proof the letter by Lefebvre laced with sarcasm about the Cardinal's insincerity in demanding dossiers--which would have delayed the process still more and was still more evidence of insincerity on the part of Ratzinger. So I ask again--show me where Rome ever proposed a definite date. And why, if Rome was sincere, were the names the Archbishop proposed, refused?

Rome in the past had routinely accepted even the names of suspected perverts named by archbishops, or even of outright known apostates. It demurred apparently only when Lefebvre proferred names--though he alone would have best known which men could be trusted to hold the line against papal pressures in the future and which would not. And this is precisely the point. Rome had an interest in appointing weak men who would do its will, the Archbishop had an interest in preserving Catholic Tradition at all cost by naming only the most committed.

Add to this problem of who to name, the papal "commission" which was also about to be set up and which would mean that traditional Catholicism would be controlled by Rome herself --and you can see the dangers that were being proposed for Lefebvre's acceptance. In fact the Ecclesia Dei Commission even now has proven no genuine friend of Tradition, having already punished the FSSP by firing its superior general and several of its theologians for what it perceived as an affront to the conciliar Church--in other words, for very minor offenses.

As for the issue of exclusive use of the missal, I was alluding to the ninth footnote which referenced "Quattuor Abhinc Annos," Oct. 3, 1984; AAS 76 (1984) pp. 1088-1089. This letter required that "These celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin" and that "There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals." This was reinforced afterwards by the Decree of Erection which was given in Rome by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei on 18 of October 1988.

But you offer as proof the letter by Lefebvre laced with sarcasm

Not a letter, but his interview in "Fideliter" where he explained the consecrations. He explicitly states:

While I was facing Cardinal Ratzinger with that alternative, and while he was saying that he would give us a bishop on the 15th of August,

And why, if Rome was sincere, were the names the Archbishop proposed, refused?

Because Rome doesn't what extremists like Williamson to be made a bishop. Again, Msgr. Lefebvre said in a private letter that Rome would be willing to approve at least some members of his Fraternity and associated groups such as Dom Gerard's monastery. I note that Dom Gerard and his Benedictines have been regularized under the indult and he still publicly says that the 1970 Missal is inferior, that "this rite is inadequate in expressing the real Presence manifest on the altar, the sacrifice of Christ, the divine majesty".

traditional Catholicism would be controlled by Rome herself

It seems that the terrible Modernist plot already had entered the First Vatican Council:

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world ...
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

You say that the SSPX isn't in schism: then you give the reason for the consecrations as staying out of control of Rome. But by these very words you implicitly admit the motive for the schism: Msgr. Lefebvre wished to remove himself from the "control" of the Modernist Rome of the Anti-Christs headed by the Successor of St. Peter.

several of its theologians for what it perceived as an affront to the conciliar Church

Care to give the "affront" committed by these theologians?

As for the issue of exclusive use of the missal, I was alluding to the ninth footnote which referenced "Quattuor Abhinc Annos,"

The Ecclesia Dei Commission has explained that the "wide and generous" application called for by the Pope removed all of the conditions except for the first:

In this regard I also wish to put an end to any further useless arguments based on Quattuor abhinc annos, Cardinal Mayer's Letter to Episcopal Conferences of 3 October 1984 when he was Pro-Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. Following the interpretation of the same Cardinal Mayer when he was President of this Pontifical Commission, I wish to make it clear that, in the light of the "wide and generous application of the directives...for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962" which our Holy Father called for in his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, the only condition that from Quattuor abhinc annos which this Pontifical Commission still recognizes as binding is the first, i.e., that those priests and faithful requesting the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal "in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970."
As the dicastery charged by our Holy Father with carrying out the provisions of his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, this Pontifical Commission and only this Pontifical Commission has the right to make provisions regarding the use of the 1962 Roman Missal. No group outside of and independent of the Holy See has the authority to decide on what provisions of previous documents are binding or to rule on what constitutes an illegitimate "interchanging of texts and rites". Quattuor abhinc annos also prohibited the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal in parish churches except in extraordinary cases which were to be determined by the diocesan bishop, but we note that no one is interested in insisting on that condition. (Letter of Cardinal Hoyos to Michael Davies)

But this doesn't bear on exclusivity - the 1984 Indult was never understood to prevent an indult priest from offering the Mass acording to the 1970 Missal. Indeed, since the terms of that indult were very restrictive, there were no priests dedicated only to it and therefore they would have also offered the normative Mass. "There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals" and "These celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin" refer only to Mass offered according to the Missal by indult: that is, the Mass was not to be offered according to the 1965 Missal, in English translation, or as a "hybrid" with the 1970 Missal.

Not touchy at all. Just a stickler for truth.

Yes truth is good. The truth is the SSPX is in schism.

You apparently believe anybody who criticizes the Bishop of Rome is refusing submission, which is clearly nonsense.

I don’t believe that at all. As I posted previously, I believe he has been lax in disciplining wayward Bishops and Priests.

Popes must observe the faith like the rest of us.

OK. I’m with you on this point.

If they don't, they need to be called on it. JPII cannot invent doctrines never before practiced or believed without expecting criticism.

Here’s where you’re losing me. What doctrines has he invented?

He can't pray to false animist gods just to be nice, for instance.

I don’t pretend to read the heart of the Pope.

Far too many Catholics are like yourself--all too ready to ascribe to the pope divine powers he does not possess, as if his every word and gesture were divinely inspired.

This is pure BS. There’s not a Catholic on these threads who believes this. The Pope is a sinner just like the rest of us. What we do believe is the Charism of his office protects him from teaching error to the Universal Church in matters of Faith and Morals.

But the faith is something handed-down to us by Sacred Tradition, not something invented by a pontiff. In other words, it is our Catholic Tradition which must be guarded at all costs, not every novel papal doctrine that comes down the pike.

No Pope has, can or will put forth a novel doctrine. You are confusing Church discipline, which a Pope can or will change, with dogmatic teaching .

So how do we tell the difference? Easy.

Yes it is easy. I’ll stay in Communion with the Bishop of Rome. Not with someone who thinks he knows better than the Bishop of Rome.

Here is how the First Vatican Council put it: "For the Holy Spirit was not given to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith."

OK. I’ll repeat, you confuse doctrine with discipline.

In other words, only papal utterances which guard Tradition have divine protection, novelties do not.

I understand this. I’m not sure you do.

"You say that the SSPX isn't in schism: then you give the reason for the consecrations as staying out of control of Rome. But by these very words you implicitly admit the motive for the schism: Msgr. Lefebvre wished to remove himself from the 'control' of the Modernist Rome of the Anti-Christs headed by the Successor of St. Peter."

I would put it differently. He did not trust the modernists because it was they who were actively seeking to destroy the traditional Church. Their intentions were out in the open--the Archbishop was merely reacting to their aggressions against the faith. That is simply the truth. And the Pontiff went along with the wrecking-agenda. That is also the sad truth. Why shouldn't he have preserved Catholic Tradition at all cost? It was sanctity of the highest order on his part that he should have responded as fully as he did, at great cost to himself in terms of continual persecution.

As for the "affront" to Conciliar Rome on the part of Bisig and his theologians--suppose you tell me. They were above reproach as far as I could tell, but it was Hoyos who felt they were not thinking with the conciliar Church. For this he fired them--something Rome doesn't do very often--not even when Novus Ordo priests are caught red-handed with their hands in the till or picking up male prostitutes or raping little boys. It seems Rome only gets nervous around traditionalists--and so only their heads ever roll.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.